There's this creeping thing spreading across the globe that the most innovative space in modern economies needs to be treated like the least innovative services in the history of the world. I think the trend is bad, I think people don't know what they are talking about most of the time, and certainly not what might be coming down the system of tubes in the future, and I want regulators to get tf out of there and let stuff happen. The amount of harms for any of the delivery abuses you want to name is to me completely trivial compared to having to beg for permission to do anything over the protestations of protected monopolies serving (ugh) 'the public interest'.

Scraping someone else's ranking and content and presenting it as your own ranking is innovative in the millennials invented roommates sort of way. Letting practices like that flourish harms innovation more.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

Mo wrote:Scraping someone else's ranking and content and presenting it as your own ranking is innovative in the millennials invented roommates sort of way. Letting practices like that flourish harms innovation more.

Dude, co-living will change EVERYTHING!!! I saw an ad on social media saying so!

"There are so few people at the Federal Mall it's almost as empty as it was at Trump's inauguration."
--D.A. Ridgely

Scraping someone else's ranking and content and presenting it as your own ranking is innovative in the millennials invented roommates sort of way. Letting practices like that flourish harms innovation more.

Depends on the implications of not letting them flourish - like everyone having to say "mother may I" on their knees in front of the High Commission of Internet Purity.

If our choices were "monopoly ISPs with NN regulations" or "free market in ISPs with no NN," I'd definitely pick the latter. But those are NOT the choices we face; the choice is "monopoly ISP with NN" or "monopoly ISP free to do pretty much what it wants." Given those two choices, I don't see how the latter option is supposed to be better, from a consumerist or a libertarian/personal-freedom angle.

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Because NN comes with a billion other regulations and specifically empowers regulators to have their nose in everything forever and that's a mistake.

Other than the idea "anything government-related must be worse than anything corporate-related," why is an ordinary everyday internet user like me supposed to think "Letting Comcast charge for fast and slow lanes (fast access to Comcast-approved stuff, slow access otherwise)" is better than letting the government tell Comcast to knock it off and treat all content equally? And remember: I am asking this in the specific context of "Comcast sucks but I do NOT have the option to take my business elsewhere, because they have a monopoly." If I want internet, Comcast is my only option.

"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

More time has passed since this "Wear Suncreen" video was posted on youtube and the present day, than between when the original essay was published and the video was posted on youtube.

(prompted by this article saying that DC public schools are going to make it ok to wear sunscreen without a doctor's note, which prompted a nostalgia push to watch the video, and prompting the response, 'man, there was some good advice in there')

when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

Yup. It’s baked in once trump being trump wins the election. The people decided there that being a shit person paying off hookers and grabbing genitalia with a litany of extra marital things wasn’t disqualifying for the office.

Yup. It’s baked in once trump being trump wins the election. The people decided there that being a shit person paying off hookers and grabbing genitalia with a litany of extra marital things wasn’t disqualifying for the office.

I don't even know who else could get away with it. It's more like Trump's reputation has been in the toilet for so long that "oh, that's just who he is, and we're fine with that." He gets credit for "not being a hypocrite", even though he's a huge hypocrite.

"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

Then he should at least make a weekly variety show out of it. Each week get on stage and showcase another of his colorful adventures. Then he'd get paid. Right now CNN is getting all the revenue for content that he provides free of charge.

"There are so few people at the Federal Mall it's almost as empty as it was at Trump's inauguration."
--D.A. Ridgely

The real question is, why is no one making a bigger deal out of the fact that a guy who can't even properly negotiate a hush money deal with a pr0n star is now engaging in direct nuclear negotiations with the Norks?

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod